Emergent Apologetics?
July 14, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton
Youth Specialties’ journal for youth workers, creatively
titled Youthworker, recently published an article by Tony Myles called
“Emergent Apologetics.” Since apologetics is my specialty, I thought it might
be helpful for me to provide some commentary on this piece.
“Debating is a
lost cause. Don't believe me? Let's debate about it.” This is a disaster of
a statement, let alone an opening line. Apparently I simply have to accept the
fact that debating is a lost cause; I’m not even allowed to think otherwise.
Mr. Myles assumes his conclusion to make his point. Strike one.
“I have intentionally stayed away from modern apologetics
for quite some time…Funny—who knew that people didn't like being belittled?”
I find this comment rather belittling to those of us who think “modern
apologetics” is effective and Biblical. He may be able to point to one or two
“modern apologists” who are belittling (like Robert Morey), but for the most
part we aren’t. In fact, most are warm and charitable people of God (has he met
Josh McDowell, Nancy Pearcey, Greg Koukl…?). But Mr. Myles doesn’t even offer
an example aside from his own abuse of apologetics. With this point he brushes
away “modern apologetics” as mean and useless, without ever showing how or why it
is; let alone that he never defines “modern apologetics” either. Strike two.
Mr. Myles says there’s a new “paradigm of apologetics on the
horizon” that respects people and this involves redefining apologetics. For the
postmodern emerging church, he sees this worked out in at least four ways:
“The (re)emergence of the story/narrative approach…Most
of the time, I present this through personal stories, illustrative narratives,
and biblical examples. In the end I find that it's the stories I use to
“flesh out” the points that most people remember. We still need a
biblical “skeleton,” but without the skin it's not nearly as
interesting.” I have no idea what this has to do with apologetics; this is
really a point about homiletics. However, when did the Bible become
un-interesting? Yes, people remember stories, but if you give them the Bible
they’ll remember that too. Paul didn’t tell Timothy that Scripture and
narrative are profitable; he said that Scripture is divinely inspired and
profitable (2 Tim 3:26-17). Rome added tradition. Modernism added rationality.
Postmodernism, and especially the emerging church, adds narrative. Apparently
we’ve forgotten what the reformers tried to remind us of- Scripture (not us) changes
hearts and minds towards God. Strike three. (Postmodernism doesn’t hold to
modernistic assumptions of rules, so he can have all the strikes he wants.)
“The (re)emergence of originality. No
longer can the same sermon be preached without care to the specific people in
our context.” Once again a point about homiletics, maybe he’ll get to
apologetics later. When was this ever not true? But the more important question
is, why is it true? It’s true because sermons today contain personal stories of
experiences that may or may not be relevant to other groups of people. The
Bible, however, is relevant to every group of people regardless of culture,
nationality, or personality. If sermons were comprised of Biblical teaching,
this would not be an issue. But since preachers insist on adding personal
narrative to the Bible, they must be mindful of the context in which they’re
preaching. The better solution would be to simply teach the Bible. Strike four.
“The (re)emergence of practical hope… we
must help them to see the “real side” of life through the biblical
lens of Jesus. This requires us to extend ourselves in fresh ways through our
preaching so that we move past the “same old, same old” and truly
bear witness to the hope of Christ.” He’s still talking homiletics. I’m not
sure what this even means. What is the “same old, same old” we’re suppose to
move beyond? Wouldn’t it be helpful to tell me if you want me to move beyond
it? Hasn’t the Gospel always been the best practical hope? So wouldn’t
preaching it be the best solution? (Mark Oestreicher said questions are better
than answers, so how do you like all my questions?) I can’t even give Mr. Myles
a strike here since he didn’t really say anything substantive.
“The (re)emergence of biblically-based teaching… more
and more people (especially students) seem to be giving greater respect to
Scripture, theology, and the life of Jesus. Perhaps this admiration is why they
are less interested in pop psychology and more concerned about finding an
anchor of truth. The more our teaching can contain such a foundation, the more
value others will ascribe to it.” Wow. This is the first time, that I can
recall, reading someone in the emerging church movement admit that people are
concerned about truth, Scripture, and theology. I think this is true, and so
obviously true that I don’t consider it profound; but it is profound within
emergent. People are actually more interested in truth than whimsical stories.
I hope Mr. Myles takes this point into consideration when thinking about the
others. He gets a base hit for this one.
“The opportunities to be the listening learner are
earning us credibility we lost during our modern debates. Then again, is there
really anything new under the sun? Perhaps we heard this once before in the
ancient letters of a former debater…[quote of 1 Peter 3:15-16]” I didn’t know
Peter was a “former debater.” Maybe I’m missing that page in the Bible. I don’t
recall any one of the apostles praised for being a great “listener learner.”
Acts is our model for evangelism; where are the “listener learners?” I wonder,
if we’re doing all of this listening and learning, when are we proclaiming the
simple, practical, and necessary Truths of the Gospel?
One last point to this long post- Mr. Myles’ proposals
are all pragmatically motivated. Apparently grounding our apologetics or
homiletics in the Bible is not the way to go- we need to work out the
“postmodern sensibilities” to make sure we’re not coming off as mean or
belittling. Instead of modeling ourselves after the fallen culture, my prayer
is that we model our evangelism and apologetics after the inspired Word of God.
“For we never came with words of flattery, as you know, nor with pretext or
greed—God is witness. Nor did we seek glory from people, whether from you or
from others, though we could have made demands as apostles of Christ. But we
were gentle among you, like a nursing mother taking care of her children. So,
being affectionately desirous of you, we were ready to share with you not only
the gospel of God but also our own selves, because you had become dear to us.”
(Paul in 1 Thessalonians 2:5-8 ESV)
Related posts:
- Debating Emergent Apologetics
- ETS 2008 – William Henard “Sinners in the Hands of the Emergent Church”
- Is the Emergent Church a Threat to the Gospel? or Why Im Concerned
- Where is Emergent Going?
- Discussing Emergent: A Plea for Realism and Charity
- Modern Reformation #5: Emergent Church Roundtable Discussion
Posted in Apologetics, Culture, Emerging / Emergent Church, Main Page, Roger's Posts, Theology
content rss
July 14th, 2005 at 8:46 am
It is true that many within the emergent church (McLaren, et al.) are hurting the argument by not standing on the veracity of Scripture (or at the very least having low Biblical content). No argument there at all. However, one should not assume that just because someone identifies himself or herself with the emerging church (notice I didn't say “emergent church”; according to Ed Stetzer–and I agree–emergent and emerging are different animals) that they propose to do away with the Bible. In fact, that is a dangerous assumption–one that Dr. Al Mohler has embarrassingly fallen head first into.
The point behind the emerging church is this (and I'll use another Stetzer-ism): we must hold Jude 3 (contend for the faith, stand firm on the Word) in balance with I Corinthians 9:22 (”I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some.”)
While it is an excellent and necessary critique of the emergent church that there tends to be low Biblical content, please don't assume (as it seems your post does) that everyone within the “movement” thinks that way. This is not the “seeker sensitive” movement repackaged.
July 14th, 2005 at 9:34 am
It seems as if, without actually saying it, this author is proposing an approach of persuasion just through interpersonal love. As Murdock repeatedly asked, what is new about treating people with respect?
It also sounds like he is willing to walk away from propositional discourse. Not that that is possible, as he himself demonstrates:
July 14th, 2005 at 10:25 am
I appreciate your thoughtful comments, but I have to disagree. Now, there is a wide spectrum within the movement and so there are some who remain Biblical (like Dan Kimball). However, most of what I've read from within the movement is based on a foundation of appealing to the culture, not to Scripture. The general motivation for a method, doctrine, or action is often more based on “do they like it?” rather than “does the Bible teach this?” In some cases what do lines up with Scripture, but I'm afraid that's usually more coincidental than purposed. For many, and possibly most, the Bible is merely another voice we should consider when making a decision, not the final authority.
I haven
July 14th, 2005 at 11:04 am
the tall skinny kiwi doesn't discriminate between emerging and emergent on march 17th, 2005 . to him they are interchangeable and he emerges himself.
God is good
jpu
the umblog
July 14th, 2005 at 11:43 am
I couldn't help but to think of something I posted on my blog when you mention “wandering off a cliff.” Since God shephards His sheep with His Word through the Holy Spirit, we could so easily wander off the cliff and bring many with us.
July 14th, 2005 at 12:11 pm
Roger, I think you're right that it would have been helpful if Myles had defined the kind of apologetics he's against. A good apologist often uses illustrations, analogies and stories to illustrate the propositional truth he or she is trying to explain. I just don't think emergents are aware of what's really going on in the apologetics world. Where are these apologists he's talking about? What exactly are they doing?
The top apologists I know and listen to advocate asking questions of the listener to help them come to the right conclusion (Koukl), use personal stories to illustrate truth (Craig and Habermas), and have initiated and participated in extensive dialogue with Mormons (Hazen, Mosser, etc.)–I could go on and on with a list of names here.
It's frustrating to me that so many emergents dismiss apologetics in broad strokes instead of explaining exactly what they're against. I think they just don't understand what's going on these days. Dan Kimball and Ryan Bolger are the only emergents I've ever heard say they see the value of apologetics.
July 14th, 2005 at 12:21 pm
I was going to link to that tonight. Perhaps I still will in case people don't read this.
July 14th, 2005 at 1:55 pm
Darnit! I always knew Paul took the wrong approach at Mars Hill….
Serioulsy though, Mr. Myers seems to have created a false dilemma here. In actuality, we use rational discourse as well as more relational means to “get into” other people's lives.
Quite frankly, I have no problem with narrative or storytelling. But they can't be built upon air. They have to be held up by something true for there to be any meaning at all.
July 14th, 2005 at 10:21 pm
Weird. I thought for sure I logged in when I posted this. Ah well.
July 15th, 2005 at 2:07 am
http://theconstructivecurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2005/07/christian-apologetics-manifesto.html
Doug Groothuis on apologetics.
Big Chris
Because I said so
July 15th, 2005 at 7:05 am
The Tall Skinny Kiwi does not interchangably use the two terms. Read his post again, more carefully.
The difficulty arises because there are “emerging” churches in every denomination, which hold to the doctrinal statements of those denominations, but are attempting to be missional instead of attractional. It's a question of missiology and ecclesiology for most, not theology.
Emergent is also the name of the organization(s) that sponsor conferences, books, etc. This is a much smaller, albeit influencial, segment of the emerging church in general.
July 15th, 2005 at 2:34 pm
As a first-time visitor to the site, I wanted to offer a comment or two and perhaps contribute to the discussion by asking a question or two.
First, I appreciate Murdock's insights to Tony Myles' article, and I would tend to agree with his assessments. Since some of you have interacted with those in the EC movement or their writings, perhaps you could offer me some insight on a couple of things.
1) Why the usage of such insensible and abstract terms as, “If people are truly struggling with questions about reality, we must help them to see the “real side” of life through the biblical lens of Jesus.”? I confess that I would have a hard time explaining to others what the author even means by this. For a movement that strongly desires to effectively communicate and interact with others, there seems to be this excessive use of phraseology and terms that confuse rather than clarify. Why is this?
2) It's true that Paul “became all things to all men” (1 Cor 9:22), but that was in the context of him reaching different people groups. Did a Gentile have to learn how to relate to other Gentiles for the purpose of reaching them? Did a Jew have to “study the culture” so that they could reach other Jews? Of course not.
I'm an American living in the mid-west U.S. Believe me when I say that I'm intimately familiar with my culture, having been immersed in it for 30+ years. I am certain that if I moved to another part of the country I would have to adapt to the culture prevalent there, and one can see this in the difference of style and means which churches minister in such geographically diverse locations as the South, the West Coast, and New England. My problem is not trying to be in the world, it's renewing my mind so that I am not of the world. So my question is, why this fascination and fixation on culture, which one by definition ought to be (barring moving to another country or area) well-acquainted with? Like the Nike commercial, we “Just do it.”
3) I work with many new believers who are college-age, and I don't find this cynicism or discontent with the church. To them, their new life in Christ is a bright new adventure, where fellowship, the Bible, discipleship, apologetics, ect. is a fresh new start from their old lives of drinking, immorality, etc. It seems to me that much of the impetus of the EC movement is not from new believers coming to know the Lord, but from jaded believers who grew up in the church. As a person who came to know Christ when I was 20 yrs. old, it's difficult for me to understand this.
I'm beginning to view the EC movement as a cynical response by those who grew up in churches that may not have been very healthy, as opposed to a movement generated by new believers coming in from our current culture. But again, I'm just at the beginning of my journey to understand this. Any help you could provide me would be most appreciated.
Yours,
C. Wynn
http://www.christianscholar.net
July 15th, 2005 at 5:11 pm
Good article. My concern is that moving in the direction of a narrative emphasis and with less surety of positions on truth etc. often does harm to the unity of the church. One might believe that there was no need to adapt to “reach the culture” but that it actually is a digression. As Murdock said God's Word is relevant and Acts shows that in motion. Much preaching and much conversion. Paul reasoned much and that with narrative but I can't recall narrative without the appeal to embrace the truth based on fact. Paul guided Timothy in his first letter to him to avoid certain “speculations” which were not grounded on facts. I could be wrong but I can't imagine a church like Grace Community in CA (MacArthur's church) shifting gears to a more culturally sensitive approach w/o much fallout within.
July 15th, 2005 at 6:35 pm
PBS did 2 programs viewable online on the emergent with McLaren and Carson.
Here
July 15th, 2005 at 6:36 pm
http://theologica.blogspot.com/2005/07/emergent-on-pbs.html#comments
July 15th, 2005 at 9:17 pm
C. Wynn,
1) This may sound belittling or ad hominem, but it's not intended so- I see such statements in emergent writings frequently. Why? I think it's an obsession with religious language by people with no theological knowledge to inform their language. It's an attempt to sound profound even though there's no meat to the statement. It sounds nice and spiritual, but if you think about it it doesn't mean much. The problem is the lack of theological understanding in pursuit of spiritual experience.
2) I think the answer to this question follows from #3…
3) You'll find many of those propogating emergent material come from extreme fundamentalist backgrounds and they read their experience with these ideologies onto the entire church. In some sense emergent is a rebellion against what they understand the modernist/fundamentalist church to be. They also find that non-Christians don't like fundamentalism either, and so the uncritical embrace of culture flows from trying to find a Christianity that resonates with their cultural experience- which is often defined by both Christians and non-Christians.
There is a book that contains the backgrounds of many emergent leaders- Stories of Emergence edited by Mike Yaconelli. For more general information on emergent, see my Amazon feature: Get to Know the Emerging Church.
July 15th, 2005 at 11:05 pm
Thank you for your response back, Murdock. I appreciate the insights–they will be a help in forming my opinion on these things.
Yours,
Chuck
P.S. Love the “A-Team” theme. Now if only you guys had the theme song playing when someone visits the site…:-)
July 16th, 2005 at 2:46 pm
As an apologist myself I want to respond at length to your post on postmodern apologetics, but it may be wuite long so I want to email it to you for your approval. I hope you will post it and invite comments to invite dialogue.
I will leave that to you, but I felt the response was so long it kinda didn;t fit the “comment” section.
My email is mac@azotuscafe.com
I'm about halfway through. I hope you will be open. In a sense I stand somewhere between the two and have a unique angle as I have both been a professional apologist like yourself, but now deal in an almost strictly postmodern context.
Grace and peace,
Mac
PS If your email address is on the site I'll find it, if not can you send it?
Thanks
July 19th, 2005 at 12:46 pm
Thanks for your comments on what I wrote for YS. It's obvious this is something you're very sensitive about, hence the line by line critique. Since I don't know you personally, I'll assume this comes from a healthy motive. If I can, I'd like to offer a few comments back your way:
1) I don't know if I identified myself with the “emerging church movement.” Be careful not to read into something that isn't said for the sake of making a point. If I am going to identify myself with anything or anyone it would be Jesus Christ. Due to the context we all live in, though, I am curious as to how we can maintain an uncompromising commitment to Him while maintaining a balance of being in the world while not being of the world. Thus, the questions and observations I raised regard interacting with the lost in an emerging culture of postmodernism.
2) I don't know if I should take offense to the comment that I am not a theologian. Or to quote: “I think it's an obsession with religious language by people with no theological knowledge to inform their language. It's an attempt to sound profound even though there's no meat to the statement.”
Just out of curiosity, what do you know of my theological background? I ask because I am curious as to how “informed” you are of how “informed” I am.
Then again, I don't know you, so I'll go ahead and believe the best in your motives.
3) In reference to the inclusion of homiletics in my piece, I didn
July 22nd, 2005 at 2:02 am
So, Mr Murdock, I assume that you won't be a specialist in the emerging apologetics.
You both share that hubris of answers, whether in the traditional apologetic or the emerging version of a caring success.
Your response is the best example of the case being made by Mr Myles. You ramble on about the inconsistancies, and, “Where's the apologetic?” you cry. “Just stories?” “Nobody's being told they are wrong, truth is over here, let me show you?”
I had a Classical Greek professor who came to Christ because he knew some Christians who were happier, more ordered in their lives. “Their lives wern't a mess” he said. Josh McDowel would not have impressed him at all. I don't know what your circles are but, believe me, it has been a long time since people with a classical theological education have been considered the intellectual giants in any room.
I'll admit that Myles seems to be delivering a series of one-liners, “Straw men” adapted to youth culture needs rather than a serious evaluation of Apologetics Mo and PoMo for that culture.
Yes, it does bother me too, these “emerging” people claim the high ground, the new, the more appropriate, the 2006 model of doing it and when it is evaluated there is nothing new at all. And often we see that they haven't done their homework. They do not know the past that they critique and they are not clear about the pardigm that they adopt with such enthusiasm. And then people applaud and act like something significant has be said.
I mean, come on, we've always liked stories. Wev'e always cried with the illustrations, and I can still remember some of them. True, I remember no outlines. But that's not proof of a PoMo phenomenon. It's just that now we are willing to pay a guy $50,000 a year to tell us stories every Sunday. In the past we wanted a little bit more for our money, even though we often slept through it.
The real challenge is to identify with the race of man in its brokenness and need of a powerful Savior. You know, that one begger showing another begger where to get some food. (yes, it is a narrative, but it's very old…Vance Havner, or Charles Spurgeon, I think)
Neither apologetic does that.
July 22nd, 2005 at 3:08 am
“The real challenge is to identify with the race of man in its brokenness and need of a powerful Savior. You know, that one begger showing another begger where to get some food. (yes, it is a narrative, but it's very old…Vance Havner, or Charles Spurgeon, I think)
Neither apologetic does that.”
If neither, then is there any apologetic at all?
I don't think you can escape apologetics altogether, even if you are just showing another beggar where to get food. People are made in the image of Christ, which means they are not void of reason and logic. Broken as that image may be, people still use reason to justify their beliefs or unbelief. It may manifest itself in just plain skepticism, or it may manifest itself as a full-fledged antithetical worldview. In every case where we evangelize, I do believe apologetics is applied in all senses since we are giving reasons for the faith that we have. Wherever a person is in their life, simples questions of “why?” deserve an answer just as much as those harder, tougher, more philosophical, anti-Christian diatribes. In both cases, reasons for our faith are given. This is apologetics.
So in the illustration you gave about being a beggar showing another beggar where to get food, showing where is one thing, but when the other beggar begins to question as to why he/she should believe you, follow you, or even believe it is really food, you will end up engaging in apologetics.
August 5th, 2005 at 12:20 am
I believe through all of this that everyone here proved Tony's first point.
August 5th, 2005 at 12:22 am
I believe through all of this that everyone here proved Tony's first point.
August 5th, 2005 at 1:25 am
Read Paul's letter to the Galatians.
September 1st, 2005 at 2:20 am
My spin is that Myles seems to be on track.
September 1st, 2005 at 12:12 pm
Anonymous, I saw your comment after I posted my piece on the need for apologetics today. I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on that post. Do you think it's possible to use apologetics in an effective way, or do you believe that it's always wrong to discuss evidence?